Romney himself said his plan would take 8-10 years. And yet you criticize the president for not being able to do it in 4?

But Romney would immediately approve a fuel pipeline routed to the US from Canada. Also, the coal industry would not bring a lawsuit against the EPA so they can continue working like (this happened to the Obama administration a year ago), and a Federal judge would not order the Obama administration to lift the sanctions imposed on the smaller and local oil companies in the Gulf Coast. AND EPA officials would not make comments like this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3GB_b7Nuo

In other words, the private sector would have a better chance to create jobs as government gets out of the way.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sydde

I find it a bit disturbing that you paint a dire picture and then laugh about it.

What? Should I be sad and get an ulcer over it? A laugh is "good medicine."

But Romney would immediately approve a fuel pipeline routed to the US from Canada. Also, the coal industry would not bring a lawsuit against the EPA so they can continue working like it happened to the Obama administration a year ago, and a Federal judge would not order the Obama administration to lift the sanctions imposed on the smaller and local oil companies in the Gulf Coast.

In other words, the private sector would have a better chance to create jobs as government gets out of the way.

Do you even know why the EPA decided to crack down on the coal industry? It's because of the massive coal ash spill in Tennessee a few years back. The industry was more interested in maximizing their profit margins than storing this toxic byproduct safely.

__________________

There is something deeply wrong with a society more offended by breasts than by entrails.Pebble SmartWatch | iPhone 5c | 11" Macbook Air '13 | HTPC | TV | Numerous Old Consoles

Your comments remind me of the news media giving equal time to "both" sides of the story as a means to feign journalistic integrity. While it is demonstrably true that both parties get a failing grade on their ability to actually deliver on their promises, the difference between the two parties is great, and we live in an age where we have access to data that makes the distinction clear. It's demonstrably true there has not been a Republican since Nixon who has balanced the budget. It's demonstrably true that with the exception of Obama, every Democrat since Truman has balanced the budget. It's demonstrably true that the supply-side economics espoused by Romney and Ryan do not work. It's demonstrably true that in the last 50 years Democratic presidents have overseen almost double the job growth as Republicans.

This is not my opinion, this is fact.

That conservative administrations are better stewards of the economy is just a lazy stereotype that the Republicans have been happy to capitalize on. The president's influence on the economy is of debatable significance; the modern Republican party's economic capabilities are not.

And I can clearly see that you have drank the Democrat kool-aid. As such, there is not way for you to notice that the corruption of both political parties is exactly the same. Stand in the middle, and see the truth.

The reason why stealing money from the rich and the not so rich won't do anything for the economy is as simple as this: The US government is spending more than what it makes in taxes. There won't be a difference whatsoever, and it the Government takes every penny from the rich, it would not last a month.

It's well established that budget cuts alone are not going to get us out of this problem. And taxes are "stealing" when the government is taking in more money than it's spending...which is certainly not the case. I think transferring wealth from the middle class to the 1% is a better example of stealing.

Like building the Jeep in Italy, refrigerators and other appliances, plus computers, tablets, and phones...in China?

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Well, your pocket may have been fine, but he kind of screwed it up for the rest of the country.

And if the President has nothing to do with your pocket - it comes from hard work, right? - then why are you voting for Romney again?

Suuure! Look at the unemployment figures all over the US lately, and concentrate on Detroit, and even worst, the number of unemployed African Americans in the inner cities.

I am not trying to argue with you, just trying to tell you that something must be done for jobs creation in the US, or we are toast. Obama could probably do an excellent job on Climate Change, but he knows nothing about job creation. Look at all the money he has given away:http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/...ergy-failures/

I am pro jobs and a strong USA. I don't care if it's a Democrat or a Republican president the one who can steer the nation in the right direction so that the private sector can create jobs. Since Obama has not been able to do anything about the economy, I am voting for Romney with the hope he can win. If he loses, then I will do just fine for four more years with Obama.

But Romney would immediately approve a fuel pipeline routed to the US from Canada. Also, the coal industry would not bring a lawsuit against the EPA so they can continue working like (this happened to the Obama administration a year ago), and a Federal judge would not order the Obama administration to lift the sanctions imposed on the smaller and local oil companies in the Gulf Coast. AND EPA officials would not make comments like this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3GB_b7Nuo

In other words, the private sector would have a better chance to create jobs as government gets out of the way.[COLOR="#808080"]

This wouldn't create many permanent jobs anyway. You'd primarily gain some in pipeline construction. Oil production is one area that needs stronger environmental oversight. The EPA hasn't always been very effective in this regard. I think that's far more important than short term job growth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

I did vote for Bush, and my pocket did just fine. But the reason why my pocket did fine was because i work hard for my money and make plenty, not because Bush nor anybody else.

That doesn't provide enough data to support your conclusion. You're extrapolating to suggest that those who saw a downturn were lazy based solely on your own experience. While statistics do often interpolate data, the thing people commonly forget is that this relies on a reasonable level of randomization in the sample data. Going off personal results is counter intuitive to such things. This isn't devaluing hard work. I'm just saying that you need to move past the nonsense logic.

It's well established that budget cuts alone are not going to get us out of this problem. And taxes are "stealing" when the government is taking in more money than it's spending...which is certainly not the case. I think transferring wealth from the middle class to the 1% is a better example of stealing.

That's stealing regardless of who the money comes from. This money does not belong to the government. Besides the wealthiest Americans pay most of the taxes already. Instead of greater taxes, allow for the private sector to create more jobs, curb spending, and keep taxes low across the board.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekev

This wouldn't create many permanent jobs anyway. You'd primarily gain some in pipeline construction. Oil production is one area that needs stronger environmental oversight. The EPA hasn't always been very effective in this regard. I think that's far more important than short term job growth.

That doesn't provide enough data to support your conclusion. You're extrapolating to suggest that those who saw a downturn were lazy based solely on your own experience. While statistics do often interpolate data, the thing people commonly forget is that this relies on a reasonable level of randomization in the sample data. Going off personal results is counter intuitive to such things. This isn't devaluing hard work. I'm just saying that you need to move past the nonsense logic.

Well, I can see the nonsense of your assumptions, too. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to conduct business and create jobs. If governments step aside and make it possible for the private sector to thrive, jobs are created. Are you aware that corporate taxes in the US are the second highest in the world, and that GE did not pay taxes this year? A challenge for you: can you figure why GE didn't pay corporate taxes?

I am pro jobs and a strong USA. I don't care if it's a Democrat or a Republican president the one who can steer the nation in the right direction so that the private sector can create jobs. Since Obama has not been able to do anything about the economy, I am voting for Romney with the hope he can win.

Obama stopped the bleeding of the 800,000 jobs per month we were losing due to Bush's policies when he came in to office. Since the bleeding stopped, we've created nearly 5.5 million jobs.

Do you really think that the sky will fall if Romney wins? Haven't you realized already that it does not really matter if Obama is reelected or not?

I know YOU think the two parties are the same, but try telling that to a mother whose kid comes home in a body bag because the Republican guy started a war vs. the Democratic one who ended one and did not support sending troops there in the first place. Elections have consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

I don't know how much some of you pay for a gallon of gasoline, but in Alaska it's still over $4.00 per gallon. Four years ago I was paying around $2.00 per gallon.

You DO realize that Presidents do not set the price of oil, right? Before the price of gas went crashing down to the ground it was hovering at 4 bucks a gallon under Bush. Not that he had control of the price either. Just a historical fact for you. How quickly (or conveniently) some people forget.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

I did vote for Bush, and my pocket did just fine.

You must not have any investments in the stock market. You most assuredly would not have been fine as the stock market was tanking as the economy was crashing on Bush's watch.

Do you even know why the EPA decided to crack down on the coal industry? It's because of the massive coal ash spill in Tennessee a few years back. The industry was more interested in maximizing their profit margins than storing this toxic byproduct safely.

What does a spill somewhere else has to do with Kentucky?

Economics: without profits a company can't exist. A private company is not a government institution supported by tax payers. A private company that makes no profit is like the 36 new technologies or green companies bailed-out by the current administration to later go belly up. If any of those companies would have made a profit, it would have been successful.

Lest say that you sell donuts by yourself. In this case you have to pay for the ingredients, electricity for the frier, lighting, and so on, somebody to dispose of the used oil, marketing, property tax, another tax for the license, gasoline for your truck to deliver the donuts, and so on. Without profit your business goes broke just like our economy, if you spend more than what you make.

I know YOU think the two parties are the same, but try telling that to a mother whose kid comes home in a body bag because the Republican guy started a war vs. the Democratic one who ended one and did not support sending troops there in the first place. Elections have consequences.

You DO realize that Presidents do not set the price of oil, right? Before the price of gas went crashing down to the ground it was hovering at 4 bucks a gallon under Bush. Not that he had control of the price either. Just a historical fact for you. How quickly (or conveniently) some people forget.

You must not have any investments in the stock market. You most assuredly would not have been fine as the stock market was tanking as the economy was crashing on Bush's watch.

1. My goodness! We are now switching to WAR? But if that's what you want to do, let me tell you something about myself. I enlisted in the military during the Vietnam Era and retired a few years ago. I served under Democrats as well as Republicans, and can say that both parties get involved in wars just the same. The Vietnam war began under Democrats. In fact, John Kennedy, which by the way I liked very much as a president, was somewhat responsible for starting the war, as least for sending US troops to Vietnam as advisers. Once Kennedy died, Johnson was responsible for escalating things.

2. What do you think does to the price of oil when the Federal and local governments imposed restrictions on the oil companies, taxes them to death, and imposes sanctions that result in work stoppages? What do you think happens to the price of gasoline, or heating fuel, etc., if you close refineries, or just impose so strict regulations that they can make a profit. What do you think happens if you don't allow for pipelines to be built and bring refined oil into the US from Canada. Do you really believe that these things make gasoline cheaper? FINALLY: when the price of gasoline and diesel fuel goes up, that affects the whole nation. Trucks, trains, and ships need fuel to move all domestic products (foods, lumber, everything) from place to place, stores, supermarkets, etc. It takes fuel even to deliver fuel to the gas station. SO, if the fuels is not more expensive, every product at the stores costs more. Private enterprises should not have to bring government to court in order to exist.

3. Yes, I do. In fact, I don't pay S.S. taxes like you probably do. My S.S. taxes go straight into an investment fund. On top of that, I add part of my wages to a similar retirement fund. I retired from the military a few years ago, and will retire once again in seven years. Also, I work full time during the week, and part time during the weekend (two jobs).

Obama stopped the bleeding of the 800,000 jobs per month we were losing due to Bush's policies when he came in to office. Since the bleeding stopped, we've created nearly 5.5 million jobs.

That's pretty clear progress for the economy.

Didn't i say that I am not a Republican nor a Democrat? If you take your rose-colored glasses off you face and do some research, you will realize that your number is not correct. To understand how such numbers are much like smoke and mirrors, you would have to learn the truth from another source. Take into consideration that over 22-million Americans are unemployed, and go from there.

You can remain neutral in relation to politics, war, and so forth as told by the Republicans and Democrats, and then look at the most reliable and true information sources from both sides. With all the politics taking place at the moment, it's extremely difficult to understand who is telling the truth.

Economics: without profits a company can't exist. A private company is not a government institution supported by tax payers. A private company that makes no profit is like the 36 new technologies or green companies bailed-out by the current administration that later went belly up. If any of those companies would have made a profit, it would have been successful.

Lest say that you sell donuts by yourself. In this case you have to pay for the ingredients, electricity for the frier, lighting, and so on, somebody to dispose of the used oil, marketing, property tax, another tax for the license, gasoline for your truck to deliver the donuts, and so on. Without profit your business goes broke just like our economy, if you spend more than what you make.

Bail out? You mean by doing pretty much the same thing the government did for the oil industry in the nineteenth century? In fact the industry continues to receive subsidies from our government to this very day...

__________________

There is something deeply wrong with a society more offended by breasts than by entrails.Pebble SmartWatch | iPhone 5c | 11" Macbook Air '13 | HTPC | TV | Numerous Old Consoles

Bail out? You mean by doing pretty much the same thing the government did for the oil industry in the nineteenth century? In fact the industry continues to receive subsidizes from our government to this very day...

Of course money does not come before safety. Take for example the oil spill in the gulf coast. The Obama administration imposed sanctions that affected every oil company in the region, including the smallest oil producing operations conducted by local businesses. The end result was a loss of jobs by hundreds of local workers, and these had nothing to do with the company involved on the spill. A federal judge ordered the Obama administration to lift the sanctions so the workers could go back to work. Meanwhile Cuba across the Gulf Coast stepped oil drilling operations with Brazil and China.

So now we are reverting to the 19th century? OK, lets talk about the present: when you go to the gas station and fill your car's tank, look at the receipt. You will notice federal and local taxes. A reason why governments (federal and local) prefer that the cosy of fuel remains high is because they make a killing with every gallon of fuel sold. And it does not stop there. For example, the Federal government as well as the State also make a profit from every barrel of oil extracted from the ground on Federal lands in the State. If governments really wanted to do something about the cost of fuel, they would do it by allowing for an increase in production, and by lowering taxes.

By the way, a subsidies to successful companies aren't the same as bailouts to companies that go belly up, since the Government gets its money back in the form of taxes.

Reverting to? Oh sure, lets just sweep under the rug the inconvenient fact that the oil industry... and indeed also the coal industry... wouldn't be where they are today without the government to back them. A government which wasn't even as big as the one we have today, yet still played a critical role in the founding of new industries.

Reverting to? Oh sure, lets just sweep under the rug the inconvenient fact that the oil industry... and indeed also the coal industry... wouldn't be where they are today without the government to back them. A government which wasn't even as big as the one we have today, yet still played a critical role in the founding of new industries.

What you don't realize is that to the Federal government backing these industries is an investment. A company can't just mine or extract oil on Federal lands. The government makes a bunch of money from every ounce of gold and other precious metals mined on its lands, and makes more in the form of taxes all the way down to the shop that sells the product. The same thing in relation to oil production.

The government still makes money from minerals and oil production on private lands, and State lands. On top of that, be it federal, private, or State lands, the government still makes more money in the form of federal taxes from every worker involved in the business, distributors, contractors, subcontractors, and so forth.

Now your response fails to take into account the fact that oil pipelines are also subsidized, despite there not being any mining involved with them. Also you don't think the government will ultimately make money from the energy and industries resulting from these new sources?

__________________

There is something deeply wrong with a society more offended by breasts than by entrails.Pebble SmartWatch | iPhone 5c | 11" Macbook Air '13 | HTPC | TV | Numerous Old Consoles

Well, I can see the nonsense of your assumptions, too. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to conduct business and create jobs. If governments step aside and make it possible for the private sector to thrive, jobs are created. Are you aware that corporate taxes in the US are the second highest in the world, and that GE did not pay taxes this year? A challenge for you: can you figure why GE didn't pay corporate taxes?

That has come up previously, but we don't have the highest effective corporate tax rates. The money will come from somewhere. If you shift it away from corporate taxes, it will be applied somewhere at a personal level. As for GE, they most likely pushed it offshore somewhere. I can't find any good articles detailing the full breakdown of how they did this. I understand your insinuated reasoning, although the use of tax havens won't go away. Perhaps next time you could attempt a less patronizing response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlaskaMoose

I don't know how much some of you pay for a gallon of gasoline, but in Alaska it's still over $4.00 per gallon. Four years ago I was paying around $2.00 per gallon.

People complained about the same thing under Bush. It varied then too. What you're ignoring is worldwide pricing. It is higher at the moment overall even though we've been ahead of demand in the US.

Now your response fails to take into account the fact that oil pipelines are also subsidized, despite there not being any mining involved with them. Also you don't think the government will ultimately make money from the energy and industries resulting from these new sources?

The problem is that our national economy is in real bad shape at the moment. In this economy, the Government is not doing any good by dumping money on technologies that aren't profitable or can't create jobs. These companies are bankrupt.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekev

That has come up previously, but we don't have the highest effective corporate tax rates. The money will come from somewhere. If you shift it away from corporate taxes, it will be applied somewhere at a personal level. As for GE, they most likely pushed it offshore somewhere. I can't find any good articles detailing the full breakdown of how they did this. I understand your insinuated reasoning, although the use of tax havens won't go away. Perhaps next time you could attempt a less patronizing response.

People complained about the same thing under Bush. It varied then too. What you're ignoring is worldwide pricing. It is higher at the moment overall even though we've been ahead of demand in the US.

It was not my intention to be patronizing. The money to GE was a bailout for green technology. Nobody knows where the money went, just like the companies that went belly up.

All I know is that gasoline, heating fuel, natural gas, kerosene, diesel fuel, all products at the stores in town where a lot cheaper four to five years ago (around $2.00 per gallon of gasoline, versus $4.09 to $4.29 now). Regardless of the world price of oil, if we become less dependent of foreign oil, we can bring the price of gasoline down in the US. Just look at the price per gallon in Saudi Arabia, or even in Mexico.

That said, the higher the price is, the more money the government makes as long as there is a demand for the product.

Like building the Jeep in Italy, refrigerators and other appliances, plus computers, tablets, and phones...in China?[COLOR="#808080"]

Where do you get your 'facts', FOXNews? You are clearly Republican, you trying to sound like an Independent is not working and is making you look bad, just like everything that has gone wrong w the Republican Party this election.
Anyways here is a word from the CEO:
The memo from Mr. Marchionne is below:

Quote:

Chrysler Group’s production plans for the Jeep® brand have become the focus of public debate.

I feel obliged to unambiguously restate our position: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China.

North American production is critical to achieving our goal of selling 800,000 Jeep vehicles by 2014. In fact, U.S. production of our Jeep models has nearly tripled (it is expected to be up 185%) since 2009 in order to keep up with global demand.

We also are investing to improve and expand our entire U.S. operations, including our Jeep facilities. The numbers tell the story:

• We will invest more than $1.7 billion to develop and produce the next generation Jeep SUV, the successor of the Jeep Liberty — including $500 million directly to tool and expand our Toledo Assembly Complex and will be adding about 1,100 jobs on a second shift by 2013.

• At our Jefferson North Assembly Plant, where we build the Jeep Grand Cherokee, we have created 2,000 jobs since June 2009 and have invested more than $1.8 billion.

• In Belvidere, where we build two Jeep models, we have added two shifts since 2009 resulting in an additional 2,600 jobs.

With the increase in demand for our vehicles, especially Jeep branded vehicles, we have added more than 11,200 U.S. jobs since 2009. Plants producing Jeep branded vehicles alone have seen the number of people invested in the success of the Jeep brand grow to more than 9,300 hourly jobs from 4,700. This will increase by an additional 1,100 as the Liberty successor, which will be produced in Toledo, is introduced for global distribution in the second quarter of 2013.

Together, we are working to establish a global enterprise and previously announced our intent to return Jeep production to China, the world’s largest auto market, in order to satisfy local market demand, which would not otherwise be accessible. Chrysler Group is interested in expanding the customer base for our award-winning Jeep vehicles, which can only be done by establishing local production. This will ultimately help bolster the Jeep brand, and solidify the resilience of U.S. jobs.

Jeep is one of our truly global brands with uniquely American roots. This will never change. So much so that we committed that the iconic Wrangler nameplate, currently produced in our Toledo, Ohio plant, will never see full production outside the United States.

Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and will constitute the backbone of the brand.

It is inaccurate to suggest anything different.

Sergio Marchionne

And the cars made in Itqly are made for the European market.

__________________
☻ "A dream you dream alone is only a dream...
... A dream you dream together is reality." ☻

WASHINGTON — The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economic theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording.

The decision, made in late September against the advice of the agency’s economic team leadership, drew almost no notice at the time. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, cited the study a week and a half after it was withdrawn in a speech on tax policy at the National Press Club.

But it could actually draw new attention to the report, which questions the premise that lowering the top marginal tax rate stimulates economic growth and job creation.

“This has hues of a banana republic,” Mr. Schumer said. “They didn’t like a report, and instead of rebutting it, they had them take it down.”

Republicans did not say whether they had asked the research service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, to take the report out of circulation, but they were clear that they protested its tone and findings.

The Republican party is resisting with all its might this come-to-Jesus moment when they have to admit they're wrong about taxation. And the longer they resist, the worse our country gets.